[PATCH 3/3] tests: add one more test for event-loop signal source

[Pekka Paalanen]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 12:23:07 +0200
Marek Chalupa <mchqwerty at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> thanks for reviewing.
> 
> The failure you got is not introduced by this patch, I reported it some
> time ago here:
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80594

Whoops! Sorry, I obviously didn't read the error message I quoted. :-/

The third patch is pushed now. :-)


Thanks,
pq

> On 18 August 2014 12:18, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 11:35:07 +0200
> > Marek Chalupa <mchqwerty at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Test if when we get a signal, all signal sources for that signal
> > > get dispatched.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Marek Chalupa <mchqwerty at gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  tests/event-loop-test.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tests/event-loop-test.c b/tests/event-loop-test.c
> > > index e327a66..1709a1a 100644
> > > --- a/tests/event-loop-test.c
> > > +++ b/tests/event-loop-test.c
> > > @@ -173,6 +173,44 @@ TEST(event_loop_signal)
> > >       wl_event_loop_destroy(loop);
> > >  }
> > >
> > > +TEST(event_loop_multiple_same_signals)
> > > +{
> > > +     struct wl_event_loop *loop = wl_event_loop_create();
> > > +     struct wl_event_source *s1, *s2;
> > > +     int calls_no = 0;
> > > +     int i;
> > > +
> > > +     s1 = wl_event_loop_add_signal(loop, SIGUSR1,
> > > +                                   signal_callback, &calls_no);
> > > +     assert(s1);
> > > +
> > > +     s2 = wl_event_loop_add_signal(loop, SIGUSR1,
> > > +                                   signal_callback, &calls_no);
> > > +     assert(s2);
> > > +
> > > +     assert(wl_event_loop_dispatch(loop, 0) == 0);
> > > +     assert(!calls_no);
> > > +
> > > +     /* Try it more times */
> > > +     for (i = 0; i < 5; ++i) {
> > > +             calls_no = 0;
> > > +             kill(getpid(), SIGUSR1);
> > > +             assert(wl_event_loop_dispatch(loop, 0) == 0);
> > > +             assert(calls_no == 2);
> > > +     }
> > > +
> > > +     wl_event_source_remove(s1);
> > > +
> > > +     /* Try it again  with one source */
> > > +     calls_no = 0;
> > > +     kill(getpid(), SIGUSR1);
> > > +     assert(wl_event_loop_dispatch(loop, 0) == 0);
> > > +     assert(calls_no == 1);
> > > +
> > > +     wl_event_source_remove(s2);
> > > +
> > > +     wl_event_loop_destroy(loop);
> > > +}
> > >
> > >  static int
> > >  timer_callback(void *data)
> >
> > The first two of the three patches pushed. We have an explicit configure
> > check from SFD_CLOEXEC, but I suppose we don't need to add one for
> > SFD_NONBLOCK, because the two were supposedly introduced at the same
> > time in glibc.
> >
> > I did not push this third patch, because in my testing, the test failed
> > once. It was very hard, but I did manage to trigger it a second time
> > too, by having lots of CPU and IO load on the machine and running the
> > test in loop until it failed:
> >
> > test "event_loop_destroy":      exit status 0, pass.
> > event-loop-test: tests/event-loop-test.c:298: event_loop_timer_updates:
> > Assertion `context.count == 2' failed.
> > test "event_loop_timer_updates":        signal 6, fail.
> > test "event_loop_timer":        exit status 0, pass.
> > test "event_loop_multiple_same_signals":        exit status 0, pass.
> > test "event_loop_signal":       exit status 0, pass.
> > test "event_loop_free_source_with_data":        exit status 0, pass.
> > test "event_loop_post_dispatch_check":  exit status 0, pass.
> > 7 tests, 6 pass, 1 fail
> >
> > I would like to see some fix on that, even if only theoretical, before
> > I push this one.
> >
> > Or an ack from someone else that we should just push this and wait for
> > the fallout if any.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > pq
> >
> 
> Regards,
> Marek